Letter to the Editor: Complexity of the human eye

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Bryenldsen recently made his case for Darwinian evolution when
he declared in the July 20 Argus Leader that the human eye proves his
case: "Imperfect eyesight is evidence that there is no intelligent
creator behind our design." He concluded with the assurance, "Only
evolution explains why some people are born with poor eyesight and
some are not."

The human eye actually is an organ of staggering complexity - not
normally used as an example by evolutionists to make their case.
Charles Darwin himself once acknowledged: "To suppose that the eye,
with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus of
different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for
the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree. ... The belief that an organ as perfect as
the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to
stagger anyone."

Darwin was undeterred, however, and continued to advance the idea of
various random mutations during extremely long periods of time being
responsible for the development of the eye.
Advertisement

However, one of the leading evolutionists of our time, Niles Eldridge,
once observed: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life
supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while knowing
that it does not."

And the famous Harvard evolutionist, Stephen Gould, concluded that the
Darwinian synthesis "as a general proposition is effectively dead
despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

Bryenldsen might believe he has "clear and obvious proof that there
was no creator behind our design," and perhaps he is partly correct -
he and certain other humans did evolve from monkeys.

And others, imperfect eyesight notwithstanding, are the product of
intelligent design - at the hand of the creator.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080731/VOICES09/807310321/1057/COLUMNISTS
or http://tinyurl.com/643bs6










J. Spaceman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Letter to the Editor: Complexity of the human eye
    ... Douglas Bryenldsen recently made his case for Darwinian evolution when ... The human eye actually is an organ of staggering complexity - not ... Darwinian synthesis "as a general proposition is effectively dead ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: Complexity of the human eye
    ... Douglas Bryenldsen recently made his case for Darwinian evolution when ... The human eye actually is an organ of staggering complexity - not ... Darwinian synthesis "as a general proposition is effectively dead ... was no creator behind our design," and perhaps he is partly correct - ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Irreducible Complexity
    ... creationist argument which is that some organ, like the eye or wing, ... systems could not evolve. ... and so on) before the evolution of the human eye is complete. ... the irreducibly complex systems we find in Biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Is Sociobiology Nuts?
    ... Is Sociobiology Nuts? ... Other Fables of Evolution, links popular Darwinism to other modern ... For Darwinian social scientists, the ubiquity of a phenomenon, such as ... existence is that genes seek to reproduce themselves, ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: from jms: research help
    ... bioengineering IS a Darwinian process. ... evolution, or his followers ... In 20,000 years humans can not ... But once travel became easy enough that a person can ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)